Many challenges presently exist with current systems and methods available for allocating available telecommunications and network bandwidth to users attempting to initiate voice, data, and media connections between users and subscribers. Previously, dedicated and specialized local exchange carriers (LEC) “class 5” switches were geographically located near end users or subscribers having telephones and other devices that are connected to a public telephone switched network (PTSN). Because of limited bandwidth of legacy PTSN systems, such class 5 switches used an out of band signaling system 7 (SS7) to enable setup and tear down of calls. These systems formed part of the plain old telephone system (POTS). See, for example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-5_telephone_switch.
The telecommunications call traffic from such end-user subscribers was aggregated and communicated to geographically nearby “class 4” switches, which in turn further aggregated or trunked communications traffic. See, for example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class-4_telephone_switch. The dedicated class 4 switches forwarding calls between other class 4 switches, and nearby class 5 switches, and to long distance class 3 (intermediate distance), 2 (longer distance), and 1 (backbone trunks, worldwide) carriers to enable termination or completion of calls between geographically remote end-user subscribers. Such class 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 switches and related systems were vertically and horizontally integrated and owned by just a few large companies, which limited competition and innovation, and which led to break up of the companies and deregulation.
With the deregulation of the telecommunications industry and the concurrent advent and explosive growth of competition, the internet, and internet protocol (IP) in recent decades, many new technologies arose that enabled further competition and innovation. The vertical and horizontal ownership monopoly of long distance (class 1, 2, 3) and short-haul (class 4 and 5) carrier switches and systems was broken up into many different companies.
The new companies further increased competition as they divested inefficient aspects of their businesses, and endeavored to lower costs and improve efficiency to improve profitability in the new competitive environment. The long distance carriers saw the previous technical delineation between class 1, 2, and 3 carriers vanish as the technology that enabled long distance dedicated-voice telecommunications matured and merged to also enable long distance communications and IP network data and media communications traffic.
The new companies, then known as competitive LECs or CLECs, also further specialized into providing new capabilities in the class 5 and class 4 switch and systems technology areas. For example, class 5 providers developed new customer premises voice and data systems, which were compatible for use with internal customer IP and communications networks, which evolved from older wired private branch exchange systems (PBXs) into voice and data over IP of VoIP systems and VoIP PBXs, which could bypass legacy class 5, SS7 out-of-band wired switches, and use less expensive and more readily available IP internet connections to the outside world. The ubiquity of the internet has brought enhancements to legacy systems such as SS7, which has been upgraded in some places to use the internet, for example, such as SS7/IP switches.
Other parallel developments arose for local exchange class 4 switch providers who also moved away from dedicated and wired connections to legacy class 5 switches. Instead, by integrating compatibility with the communications and IP network, geographic proximity was no longer required so long as internet services were available between the target class 5 customer or subscriber, and class 4 provider or carrier. Additionally, competition continued to drive innovations as the technology that enabled class 4 and class 5 telecommunications switching overlapped with that for internet communications. Consequently, class 4 switching system providers or carriers were able to serve and connect customers or subscribers with carriers across any geographic distance.
As digital communications systems replaced older analog capabilities, the technical distinction between voice and other types of data matured into standards that decoupled the enabling hardware systems from the software technologies. More specifically, the enabling telecommunications hardware technologies evolved into standards and capabilities that were focused on communicating large volumes of high-speed telecommunications traffic without regard for the data content (voice, data, media) of the traffic.
Competitive business entities and research organizations developed an open system interconnection (OSI) seven layer model that describes the conceptual or logical architecture of the various elements of such communications systems. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model. Some technologists prefer a lower resolution model broadly describing such telecommunications systems as having four layers that include a physical and data link layer, a network and transport layer, and an application layer. Such various system models are compatible with one another, and are valuable tools for improving understanding and opportunities for interoperability. In any variation of the OSI model, there are two broad categories, a lower level physical network layer, and data communications layers termed the “media layer”, and a higher level communications layer containing the transport, session, presentation, and application layers that are also in aggregate termed the “host layer”.
With increased interoperability, compatibility, and unlimited access between CLECs, class 4 carriers, and long-distance carriers, many new challenges and problems have become apparent. For example, marketers, debt collectors, and similar businesses have sought to reach more targets using telecommunications and network infrastructure by using auto dialing and automated contact management and voice messaging systems.
These systems often are configured with many types of multi-line systems that can auto-dial dozens, hundreds, and more destination telephone numbers rapidly and or simultaneously, which can inundate infrastructure with call routing requests. Often, such call routing requests also cannot be completed because the requests seek termination to destinations that are erroneous and have changed, do not exist, and which are out of service and or cannot otherwise be reached.
So while the telecommunications and network infrastructure attempts to accept such call routing requests, and to complete the call by attempting to reach such unreachable destinations, the infrastructure cannot be utilized by nominal traffic from routine callers to reachable destinations. This results in overwhelmed but underutilized infrastructure that is being inefficiently consumed by problematic traffic from subscribers and users that will never complete a call, and which will never be billed for infrastructure usage.
To compound the problem, such users that inject problematic traffic into the telecommunications systems, are not billed for incomplete calls even though the infrastructure is operating at capacity. This introduces seemingly insurmountable problems even for the highest-speed and highest-volume hardware and software class 4 switching systems. Further adding to this challenge, the quality of service for otherwise nominal users and customers can sometimes be drastically degraded during normal operation in that such nominal users and customers are confronted with service-unavailable and all-circuits-busy messages.
Despite the rapid advances in ever more powerful, high-speed and high-volume telecommunications and network infrastructure, such infrastructure for any particular class 4 tandem exchange or carrier, as well as for long distance class 1, 2, and 3 carriers, remains limited in bandwidth for the total number of calls per second (CPS) and concurrent sessions (CS) that can be accommodated and allocated, to enable call routing and forwarding for customers and subscribers.
Typically, most such class 4 tandem exchange or carrier infrastructure can be and is configured to limit the CPS and CS for any particular subscriber or customer, which limits ensure the availability of bandwidth for the expected traffic of subscribers nominally making and completing calls, and according to the configured capacity of the infrastructure. Additionally, telecommunications technologists usually understand that the infrastructure required to enable providers and carriers to carry communications traffic is expensive to implement, and that it takes time to build out networks for the providers and carriers.
Consequently, the network communications marketplace is supply side limited, which forces providers and carriers to impose the CPS and CS limitations so that many demand side users, customers, and subscribers may utilize some bandwidth on the communications traffic networks. Unlike other commodities where supply can be increased through increased production, once installed and operational, the supply side communications networks cannot easily and rapidly increase bandwidth.
Therefore, the demand side customers and subscribers have struggled to find new ways to optimize utilization of the limited CPS and CS bandwidth so that only the most desired, highest quality traffic is switched or passed onto the limited bandwidth, supply-side carrier communications networks. In the past, some telecommunications providers and carriers have attempted to limit the available CPS and CS bandwidth by imposing a minimum cost and or profit limit to customer and subscriber traffic. However, such demand side cost controls have had limit beneficial effects.
Class 5 CLECs, class 4 tandem exchange and switch providers, and long-distance class 1, 2, and 3 carriers all seek to eliminate, control, throttle, and otherwise limit problematic traffic, and to allocate limited bandwidth resources to the traffic that is most likely to utilize and pay for the use of the infrastructure. At present, the most common methods employed by various systems impose the above-noted CPS and CS limits, which does not solve the need to identify and limit only problematic traffic, but which attempts to enable communication of desirable traffic.
Such problematic traffic can be difficult to limit when call routing requests are received from otherwise preferable LEC and CLEC subscribers and customers who may be forwarding the problematic autodialer traffic unintentionally. Additional challenges arise when such problematic traffic seeks to reach destination numbers that have been ported from their original exchanges to new exchanges, wherein the original numbering plan area (NPA) and local number prefix (NXX) are different for the new exchange.
Organizations in many countries, including the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (fcc.gov) and US Number Portability Administration Center (napc.com), maintain, and have in-part delegated responsibility to maintain, current information about telephone numbers and telephone exchanges for all land-line and wireless users, which enables telecommunications providers to determine whether a land-line, wireless, or soft telephone user has changed telephone carriers and exchanges. These organizations support maintenance of number portability administration (NPA) databases that record the current exchange and telephone information for all end users, which enables users to change their service providers. The series of databases are known as the local number portability (LNP) databases for land-line users, and the full or wireless number portability (FLNP, WLNP) databases for wireless users.
These obstacles can be difficult to surmount when traffic volumes can exceed hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of call routing requests per second or more, which can require tens of thousands of simultaneous and concurrent call sessions or more, to enable termination or disposition of the call routing requests. Such obstacles are even more pronounced in view of the more than 200,000 possible NPA/NXX routes, in the North American region alone, which each will have multiple costs and call routing rates that can be incurred to efficiently allocate and utilize infrastructure and switching systems to route calls, and to limited traffic that should not be using the call routing infrastructure.
The challenges and obstacles are further amplified when combined with the nearly 10,000 possible destination numbers for each of the NPA/NXX routes, and the thousands of customer, subscriber, vendor, and carrier entities and organizations that own, manage, maintain, access, and enable use of aggregated and collaborating telecommunications infrastructure, systems, and services.
Further obstacles have arisen in enabling the efficient routing of call routing requests and utilization of the enabling switching infrastructure, when call routing requests are received by a switch provider, vendor, or carrier that has updated one or more call routing costs in one or more of its rate decks. Typically, in the past, CLECs will engage in a relationship with many carriers to enable CLEC customer call routing requests to be terminated to a destination number.
As should be well-known by those active in the industry, class 5 CLECs and class 1, 2, 3, and 4 switching vendors or carriers are continuously changing: companies are being bought, sold, and merged. Such entities are also continuously changing their infrastructure, capabilities, and services.
CLEC and carrier companies never rest in their focus on upgrading capabilities and networks, terminating inefficient operations, expanding operations and networks, and bringing online new capabilities, networks, and innovative operations. As changes occur, such companies must concurrently assess their costs and must in turn establish new, higher or lower rates for use of their physical infrastructure and systems.
These CLEC and carrier companies have many arrangements that enable them to continue efficient and competitive operations, but nearly all such entities maintain what known in the industry as rate decks. Each customer, subscriber, vendor, carrier, and related companies and entities typically maintain any number of rate decks for use in costing various classes of telecommunications services and for types of communications traffic, such as voice calls, data, facsimile, call center PBX call, autodialer traffic for mass audio message dissemination, and the like. Such rate decks are exchanged between partnering companies and entities so that each knows what it will cost to use the infrastructure and services of another.
Such rate decks typically include at least two tiers of cost information or more, such as a local area route cost, an out of area route cost, and a cost for indeterminate or hybrid area route cost, and others. For example, in the North American region, local area costs could be for instate or intrastate call routing between cities, and out of area costs could be for interstate, cross border, or out of state calls.
Each such in area and out of area cost is associated with a specific NPA/NXX destination. Typically, such rate decks will include a route cost for each NPA/NXX destination and have different costs for local/intrastate and long-distance/interstate call routes, as well as a cost for indeterminate or hybrid routes.
These costs will be included in the rate decks for each NPA/NXX served by the associated customer, subscriber, and or carrier. While the rate decks may be limited to a few hundred local area NPA/NXXs, some rate decks for larger carriers and aggregators may for example without limitation include all North American NPA/NXXs, which number over 202,000 NPA/NXXs. Rate decks for international call route costs are similarly arranged, and the number of international destinations are even higher, adding even more complexity to the systems.
For example, if a customer or subscriber wants to initiate a call request, the customer or subscriber first checks its rate decks that were obtained from its partnering vendors or carriers, to determine if their partnering vendors or carriers list an NPA/NXX that describes the cost to terminate the request to the specific NPA/NXX destination, at route cost that is acceptable to the customer/subscriber. When rate decks change but the changes are not known to these partners, call routing requests may be initiated and completed, but the true costs are not known in advance to the call requestor or initiator.
Consequently, inefficient use of infrastructure results because, among other challenges, actual costs for infrastructure utilization are different than expected. Calls may be inadvertently routed to inefficient or high-cost infrastructure, which causes more efficient and lower cost infrastructure to be underutilized. Such cost differences are often discovered long after the calls are completed, and during subsequent billing cycle settlement activities wherein the customer or subscriber receives bills that are higher than expected. In some circumstances, such cost differentials are discovered as a result of interrupted, suspended, and or cancelled call routing services and or refused access to carrier switches and infrastructure, which causes underutilization and suboptimal resource allocation.
For example, assume customers and subscribers having a class 5 switch or similar equipment have agreed to forward call routing requests from their end users to specific class 4 switch suppliers or vendors (as well as perhaps directly to class 1, 2, and 3 switch vendors and suppliers). Each vendor and supplier will establish a contractual relationship, and will then provide each of the customers and subscribers with call routing rate decks, each for a particular class of service. Such rate decks are used by the customers and subscribers to then establish cost bases for each of their end users.
It often occurs that as vendors and carriers update their rates, they will communicate new rate decks to their customers and subscribers, usually by electronic mail. The customers and subscribers sometimes do not receive the new rate decks. Other times the rate decks may be received, but go unnoticed.
In still other circumstances, the new rate decks are received and noticed by the recipient customers and subscribers, but may not be correctly assimilated into the switches and systems of the recipient customers and subscribers, such that their cost expectations and accounting will not be accurate when they receive their periodic billing from the carriers and subscribers. As noted, such problems lead to service interruptions, disconnections, disputes, and myriad other inefficient underutilizations of telecommunications and switching resources and infrastructure, and the undesirable and unknowing use of inefficient, high-cost infrastructure.
What is needed is a new system and method for rapidly identifying and controlling, blocking, limiting, and throttling such problematic traffic or low quality traffic, and to ensure infrastructure resources and bandwidth are conserved and available to maintain service for high quality, preferred traffic. Also needed is a way to enable fast and efficient identification of specific call routing requests that enables limiting or blocking problematic traffic with a resolution to those specific, low quality call routing requests, while simultaneously enabling communication of higher quality traffic.
It is also needed to enable automated control of such specific, low quality traffic for a period of time so that such low quality traffic from identified sources does not consume infrastructure resources while such control persists. It is desirable to further enable such systems and methods to also rapidly identify problematic traffic from call routing requests that originate from specific sources and or that seek termination to unreachable destinations. Currently, no adequate solutions exist to also establish the capability to identify problematic or low quality traffic using any number of predetermined criteria, which can include one or a number of traffic characteristics.
Additionally, customers, subscribers, vendors, and carriers would all benefit from a new capability that will enable efficient, uninterrupted, authenticated, and verifiable maintenance, distribution, and integration of NPA/NXX routing rate deck route cost changes. What has been needed and long unavailable is a system that not only enables improved accuracy when updating such routing costs, but which also overcomes the many challenges associated with manual and email-based rate deck update distribution.
A system is also needed that enables more accurate and automated distribution of verifiably accurate routing cost rate decks would enable far more efficient utilization of telecommunications resources and infrastructure without the previously undesirable service interruptions, unexpected costs, and time-consuming and tedious accounting disputes between customers, subscribers, vendors, and carriers, which consumes valuable but limited time and resources that can be better expended on maintaining and improving telecommunications networks, infrastructure, operations, and related resources.
An improved solution that enables these previously unavailable capabilities is described herein. The innovative solutions include a telecommunication and network traffic control system and related methods that are configured to monitor, control, and throttle network traffic to limit and block problematic, unwanted, and harmful traffic, and which also enable verifiable, accurate, and authenticated update, management, and distribution of ever changing call routing rate deck cost arrays and information. These new systems and methods are adapted to better optimize performance of and to protect telecommunications and network infrastructure from being consumed by such sub-optimal traffic, which results in vastly improved and more efficient utilization of limited telecommunications infrastructure and systems.